West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-08-26

fanatic; his opponents regarded him
clear minded, or ''level headed" His
influence was due to the fact that he
reasoned logically on first principles.
He wrote the Declaration of indie
penpence at thirty two,-the age of
the Saviour when crucified. The
Herald says it "does not approve
what was fanatical in Jefferson's
views on Democracy and on several
other subjects" Point out wherein
and on what subject Jefferson was
fanatic. Was his Declaration of Re-
ligious Freedom, "fanatical?
The Herald says; the Prohibitionists
appreciate personal liberty and will re-
spect the rights of the minority.
The trouble is, you do not under
stand what is meant by personal lib
erty. There can be no personal lib
erty under q Government which
deals with the citizen as parent
deals with his child. Personal lib
erty means that freedom of action q
man enjoys under government
which does not attempt to restrain
his conduct except for the purpose
of securing other men an equal free
dom of action. You say-"The ma
jority will be liberal and indulgent."
But shall my liberty depend on the
caprices of a majority inaamed and
excited by appeals to the magma
ton and passions? The prohibition
theory is, that a mans conduct in
his private affairs should depend on
what the Government may fancy is
best for his individual happiness.
Our institutions are based on very
different theory. They are based on
the theory that mans conduct
should depend solely on his
own free will restrained only so
far as is necessary to secure an
equal liberty of conduct to all
other men. Personal liberty
does not exist under a Government
which claims authority to control a
mans conduct in matters which do
not involve the rights of other men.
You fail to distinguish between NOR
al rights and civil rights. A crime
against Gods law, is one thing; a
crime against mans law, is another
thing. TO take an extreme illustra-
ton; il is q moral wrong to commit
suicide, but no free Government will
punish man for ATTEMPTING
suicide; killing himself does not les
sen the rights Of any other man; and
the rule is, that the Government
must not interfere with a mans con-
duct except to prevent him from in
fringing on the rights of others.
Your idea is, that the Government
should interfere whenever in its
opinion a man is doing something
harmful to himself. Your drinking
dozen not compel me to drink. [ am
free to abstain from liquor. Why
should the Government pour whis-
key down my throat against my will?
You will say. there is great differ
ence between the Government COM
pelling man to drink and compel
ling him not to drink. But suppose
the Government be in the hands of
men who believe that liquor does
more good than harm. There are
such men, thank God very few of
them. Does not this illustration
open your eyes to the fact that mans
civil rights, in a free Government,
are measured only by the question
whether every other man can enjoy
an equal right? This is the corner
stone of our institutions and we do
not want them changed. Without
this corner stone personal liberty
cannot exist. The writer does not
expect this view to awaken
the better judgment of any fanatic,
but he does expect thoughtful men
to ponder on these things. Our free
Government rests on the theory that
thoughtful men will exert more in
fuence in elections than fanatics.
We have so long enjoyed individual
liberty that thoughtless persons lose
sight of the principles that alone Sc
cure it to us. We again repeat that
our institutions are based ON the
doctrine that the Government should
not interfere with q man unless he
NEEDLES with another man. If We
adopt this new doctrine, (which sup
poses that the Government will in
terfere with the individual whenever
the Government thinks he is doing